The BBC.Put up or shutup. By Les May

In the recent past Northern Voices has carried articles critical of official attitudes which give the impression that particular decisions have been taken which reflect a fear of how some sections of our society might react, rather than giving support people to who have appeared to be under threat. One of these was the refusal to give asylum to Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian whose life was threatened after she was released from prison where she had languished on trumped up charges of disrespecting Muhammad. The second was the failure to make clear to the followers of Islam who thought they had the right to dictate what was taught at Batley Grammar school and by whom, that Britain does not have laws against blasphemy and they were not going to be allowed to introduce one ‘by the back door’. But it appears that at least one organisation in Britain is headed by people reluctant to do their job properly and uphold the law for fear of the adverse publicity that would be generated. The organisation goes by the name of ‘TV Licensing’. To understand what is going on we need to look back a few years. TV licences for the over-75s were free from November 2000 until the end of July 2020. About 4.5 million households benefited from this. The decision to end this concession was made by the BBC which had agreed in 2015 to take over the funding of these licences. I benefited from this from July 2017 until last year. As a law abiding citizen I paid my licence fee in full on 1 August 2020 and had every intention of doing so again on 1 August 2021. I chose not to. What follows is not about whether it is ‘fair’ that people of 75 and over should have or not have to pay the licence. Nor is it about the quality of the programmes, the number of ‘repeats’, whether I watch BBC television or not, whether a licence fee is the right way to fund the BBC or whether it is all the Tory government’s fault anyhow. It’s about whether the people who head the licence fee collection organisation are willing to do their job, and thereby earn their not inconsiderable salaries, or whether they can shy away from doing it because they do not want to face the adverse publicity which would result from their having a procession of over 75s face court proceedings or have the bailiffs raid their homes. The law is clear on this matter. Not having a licence to watch television programmes, whether received over the air or via the Internet, is a civil offence. Yet after more than a year when some 700,000 (15%) previously eligible households have not purchased a licence, there has not been a single prosecution. A report in The Times in March this year was headed ‘BBC unlikely to prosecute over-75s who don’t pay licence fee’. Media correspondent Matthew Moore wrote, ‘The prospect of over-75s being dragged through the courts for TV licence evasion receded last night as the BBC gave the strongest signal yet that it has no plans to prosecute them’ and that the BBC had reassured those who previously held a free licence that they were still ‘legally covered’. The present situation is a farce. It’s time for the BBC Licensing department to either put up, i.e. launch a few prosecutions, ‘pour encourager les autres’, or shut up and accept that those who were previously eligible for a free licence will continue to do so until their demise. When I received my third or fourth reminder a few days ago I responded as follows; Dear Sirs, Thank you for your letter reminding me that my TV licence has expired. It was in fact unnecessary as I am already aware of this. I understand that you may wish to open an investigation. To save you the trouble I indicate below what such an investigation would find: 1. I am aware that I am breaking the law by not having an appropriate licence. 2. I am in a position to pay for such a licence. 3. My decision not to obtain a further licence is a deliberate one. 4. As soon as the head of the organisation known as ‘TV Licensing’ shows a willingness to uphold the law by facing the adverse publicity that would result if persons aged 75 or over are taken to court charged with failure to hold an appropriate licence, I will immediately purchase a licence. If you find it necessary to write to me in the future would you please include the full address of the organisation at the head of the letter? Yours sincerely Les May In other words I will pay up when they start doing the job they are being paid to do. In the meantime I have sent a cheque to UNICEF for £159 which is the present cost of the licence fee. P.S. Pippa Doubtfire who heads the BBC’s TV Licensing Management Team receives a salary in the range £155,000-£159,999. We don’t know what the guy who signs the letters, Chief Operating Officer Ross McTaggart, earns or even who he works for because the BBC contracts out the process of actually collecting the money.

Tory sleaze allegations give Labour a six-point lead.

Tory sleaze allegations are turning Boris Johnson into a political liability. An Opinium poll on behalf of 'The Observer', now gives the Labour Party a six point lead over the Conservatives and suggests that Johnson's personal ratings are plummeting. 

An analysis of the MP's register of interest, has revealed that more than a quarter of Tory MP's have second jobs worth more than £4m a year. Chris Grayling, the former Conservative Transport Secretary, is one of the best paid MP's with a £100,000 a year advisory role with Hutcheson Ports Europe. Another big earner, is the Conservative MP, Andrew Mitchell, who draws an income of £180,000 from multi-jobbing while being an MP. Indeed, it's claimed that half of all Boris Johnson's ex-ministers have taken up jobs linked to their government roles.

Although an MP's salary (£82,000) plus expenses, is nearly triple the national average wage, some MP's like the Conservative MP Peter Bottomley, consider it a poverty wage. While some critics argue that a parliamentarian should have one full-time job, being an MP,  and one constituency, others in the House of Commons have defended multi-jobbing - which is not illegal- on the grounds that the House is much richer for having members do other things - like lining their pockets. Another argument says that banning MP's from taking other jobs, will deter "high caliber" people from standing for Parliament which enables MP's to stay in touch with the world outside of Westminster. 

Yet, as 'The Observer' columnist, Andrew Rawnsley, recently pointed out, there are other ways for MP's to stay in touch with the hoi polloi and the world of work. Rawnsley says that no MP's list 'street cleaning' as an outside interest or serving the community as care workers, supply teachers, or bus drivers. However, some MP's like Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting, continue to work as doctors. 

When he sought the safe Conservative seat of Henley which he won in 2001, Boris Johnson told Andrew Mitchell, that he couldn't live on an MP's salary. Johnson told the recent Cop26 summit in Glasgow, that the UK is not "remotely a corrupt country"." Yet, the Conservatives, and Boris Johnson, are facing a number of investigations and the fiasco over the former minister, Owen Paterson, has made Johnson and his government a laughing stock. Johnson has been investigated over alleged free holidays in Mustique and Marbella and the awarding of public contracts to Tory insiders, which have been dubbed the 'Chumocracy'. While we're told that there's nothing bent about this, many people might wonder why anyone would want to give you a free holiday or pay to have your house done up, if there was nothing in it, like being given a peerage. As Lord Northcliffe said, "When I want a peerage I shall buy it like an honest man."

In 2020, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), said it would not be launching a criminal inquiry into whether Boris Johnson had abused his position as Mayor of London to "Benefit and reward" his ex-lover Jennifer Arcuri, who received £126,000 of public money in the form of grants for her technology business. However, the IOPC did declare that Johnson's conflict of interest may have breached the Greater London Assembly (GLA) code of conduct. According to extracts taken from Acuri's diary which have been published in the press, Johnson complimented her on her "amazing body" and was obsessed with having sex with her, while appearing to offer help with her business as an inducement. In October 2012, the diary records that Johnson told her - "How can I be the thrust - the throttle - your mere footstep as to make your career? Tell me? how can I help you? Seemingly, Arcuri was so impressed with the Mayor that she dubbed him "Alex the Great."

Although Johnson's great political hero is Winston Churchill, he is in my view, more comparable to the populist Edwardian shyster politician, Horatio Bottomley, who was also priapic and had numerous mistresses. A former MP, Bottomley was the editor of a weekly magazine called 'John Bull', and he had the ability to charm the public even while swindling them. A self-deprecating man, Bottomley described himself as "more or less honourable." In 1922, Bottomley was sentenced to seven years penal servitude for fraud and finished up sewing mailbags in Wormwood Scrubs.

It might be tempting to think that that it's only the Tories who are sleazy bastards, but we all know differently. The philosopher Bertrand Russell, in an essay on Thomas Hobbs (1588-1679) pointed out that all government's are inclined to tyranny and will try to make themselves personally irremovable. More pertinently, he wrote that they will all try to enrich themselves and their friends at the public expense. And according to Russell, what keeps them in check, is the fear of rebellion. I might also add, and a free press that isn't in their pockets. 

If This Isn't A Spoof It Should Be! By Les May

The following piece appeared in today’s Guardian (6 Nov) on the ‘Family’ page. ‘I am 16 and identify as an ace lesbian (NMLNM, or non-men loving non-men). I have questioned my sexuality since the age of 12 or 13, thinking I was bisexual. I downloaded TikTok, which allowed me to explore my identity more and interact with other queer young people. Until this summer, I questioned my identity multiple times a day (exhausting and not affirming), but I slowly began to feel confident in labelling myself as a demi-romantic, asexual lesbian (I like to use labels). However this feeling didn’t last long. I felt dysphoric a lot of the time, and I hated my breasts. Fortunately after a month, I rediscovered the term ‘demi-girl’ and it just fitted. I am also trying out she/they pronouns, but haven’t told anyone. My gender is quite fluid – some days I feel neutral, other days I feel ultra-feminine. I am open about my sexuality at school and online, and would happily tell most people that I am gay, but don’t want to come out to my parents. I think its a combination of fear, not of rejection (they are supportive of the LBGTQ+ community), and the fact that I hate the idea of having to ‘come out’ if you are queer; I don’t want to contribute to our heteronormative society. Should I tell my parents so they have time to process it, or should I wait until I have a partner to introduce to them? Also, I feel obliged to tell them of my pronoun change, but I don’t wish to be the one to use them how to use she/they pronouns, I wish they would educate themselves. If I tell them my gender and/or sexuality, I know how they would react is not in my control, but ideally our relationship will stay the same or improve.’ When my wife showed it to me she suggested it was a ‘spoof’ intended to poke fun at the ‘Alphabet Soup’ brigade. But Annalisa Barbieri, who seems to be filling the role of agony aunt, evidently took it seriously enough to pen a response including the seemingly obligatory ‘four penny worth’ from a psychotherapist. You can find the response at; https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/nov/05/i-am-16-and-identify-as-an-ace-lesbian-but-i-dont-want-to-come-out-to-my-parents At the last count it had drawn 102 responses on MumsNet. Quite a lot seemed to take the same view as my wife. https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4393772-Batshittery-from-the-Guardi

All Is Fair In Love And Activism - by Les May

 I’m member of the Community Branch of a Trades Union. A couple of week ago the regular newsletter dropped through my door. I found that I was being urged to attend a ‘demo’ on the subject of ‘Climate Change’ in Manchester. Inside was a summary of some comments made about the forthcoming COP26 meeting in Glasgow. One speaker had dismissed it as likely to be a ‘talking shop’. Just how fair are dismissive assessments like this?

In 1992 climate researcher William James Burroughs wrote; ‘… without a better understanding of natural variability of the climate, it will be much more difficult to reach early conclusions on whether man-made pollution is having a significant impact. Tackling the Greenhouse Effect involves massive adjustments in the nature of modern society. There is a natural inclination to avoid making what will be expensive and unpopular changes until the evidence of global warming is beyond doubt. But by then it may be too late.’

In his 2004 book Global Warming: the complete briefing, John Houghten, who co-chaired the Scientific Assessment Group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrote;

‘’Predictions of the future climate are surrounded with considerable un-certainty that arises from our imperfect knowledge both of the science of climate change and of the future scale of the human activities that are its cause. Politicians and others making decisions are therefore faced with the need to weigh all aspects of uncertainty against the desirability and the cost of the various actions that can be taken in response to the threat of climate change. Some mitigating action can be taken easily at relatively little cost (or even at a net saving of cost), for in-stance the development of programmes to conserve and save energy, and many schemes for reducing deforestation and encouraging the planting of trees.’

It is against the background of cautious words like these, coming from people I think we can assume know rather more about climate change and global warming than the speaker referred to in the first paragraph, that the actions or inactions of successive governments should be judged. Activists may make whatever claims take their fancy; climate scientists do no have that luxury.

John Houghten went on to say: Other actions such as a large shift to energy sources that are free from significant carbon dioxide emissions (for example, renewable sources – biomass, hydro, wind, or solar energy) both in the developed and the developing countries of the world will take some time.’

So how does the UK rate with regard to promoting renewable resources?

Between the first quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2021 the installed capacity rose from 8,690MW to 48,140 MW. That’s 560% more in 2021 than we had in 2010.

Covid 19 And Climate Change - by Les May

 In his 2001 book Climate Change, William James Burroughs heads the first chapter with a quotation from the American writer H. L. Menken ‘There is always and easy solution to every human problem – neat, plausible and wrong.’ Two contemporary human problems are the Covid 19 pandemic and changes in the behaviour of the atmosphere due to our burning of carbon rich fossil fuels. In the UK Menken’s quotation is apposite to both.

According to Boris Johnson the way out of the pandemic is just to keep on vaccinating a greater and greater proportion of the population whilst ignoring the number of daily infections. According to the blurb which accompanied a fund raising ploy by one ‘green’ organisation that dropped through my door a couple of weeks ago, in the future we are all going to be driving electric cars and eating a plant based diet.

Vaccination has been very effective in reducing mortality or to put it another way reducing your chances of dying if you are unfortunate to become infected, by at least four and a half times, but if it were the only answer to beating Covid we would not have had 5,811 new cases in the first week of August 2020 and 188,695 in the first week of August 2021. If the problems of possible climate change resulting from global warming and what to do about it were simple, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports would not weigh 5½ lbs, or the book for non-specialists ‘Global Warming: The complete briefing’ by the then UK co-chair of the IPCC run to 380 pages. Difficult problems rarely have simple solutions.

We have had a noisy response in the form of street demonstrations from sections of the public who objected to governments taking action to reduce the spread of Covid and during the COP26 meeting we can expect an even noisier response from people objecting to what they see as a lack of action from governments. Those who think like the second group might like to ponder on how well the needed action will be received by those who think like the first group and feel their individual freedom of action trumps any call for collective solidarity.

They might also consider how well it will be received by the people committed to the cause and who think that being ‘Green’ means not eating beef because cows belch out methane, a potent greenhouse gas, or avoiding dairy by substituting oat milk for the real stuff. Leaks in natural gas pipelines and methane containing gases escaping from landfill sites are probably more to worry about. Substituting chicken or pig meat may make you feel ‘Green’, but if the food they were fed on is based on soya grown on land which was originally forest you are kidding yourself, because that forest had been removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon in the form of wood.

It is sometimes difficult not to conclude that for some ‘activists’ having the UK government declare a ‘climate emergency’ is an end in itself. The problem all

governments which take seriously the need to substantially reduce the amount of carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere is how to do it and ‘keep the lights on’.

Greta Thunberg asserts that humanity is facing an existential crisis because of global warming and holds the current generation of adults responsible for creating the problem. As one of the present generation of adults I cannot help observing that Thunberg is from a rather more privileged background than I and most of my contemporaries. For example, how many of her 18 years were spent waking up on a winter morning to find feathers of ice on the inside of the bedroom window? Or living in a house in which only one room had a source of heating and that a coal fire? All mine were; I did not live in a house with central heating until I was 33. Keeping the lights on matters even if they will have to be a lot dimmer in the future.

As for global warming being an ‘existential crisis’, the Covid 19 pandemic and future pandemics caused by as yet undetected viruses coming from a similar source, are probably better nominees for that particular accolade; they really can terminate your existence. I rather think what she really means is that future weather patterns in Europe may be less benign than those we enjoy at the moment.

Extreme perhaps, but only the same as much of the world experiences every year. Early warning of hurricanes and tornadoes in the US, and the availability of cyclone shelters in Bangladesh testify to the effectiveness of mitigation measures in reducing fatalities during such events. It matters not whether the cause of the weather event is part of natural climatic variation or induced by global warning.

There are only two forms of energy which are ‘clean’ and do not emit carbon dioxide at the point of use; electricity and hydrogen. But note the caveat, ‘at the point of use’. So the question is how do we produce enough electricity both to power our cars, heat pumps, manufacturing, agriculture, bulk transport, and to produce the hydrogen by splitting water into its two component elements, without using carbon containing fossil fuels? Will we be able to build enough biomass, wind, water and solar powered generating systems to meet all our needs in the next thirty years or will we end up falling back on nuclear power stations which don’t emit carbon dioxide, but hardly qualify as ‘clean’.

Even if we can how will we store the electricity for the times the wind is not blowing or the sun not shining? And how will continue to make steel from iron ore without using coke derived from coal to mop up the oxygen and liberate metallic iron? Eight percent of the carbon dioxide which goes into the atmosphere each year comes from this source. The first so called ‘green’ steel is just becoming available. The processes use electricity directly or to produce hydrogen which then mops up the oxygen in the ore, so we need to factor that into our thinking. Long distance air travel without burning fossil fuels? What a great sense of humour you must have!

In a recent Guardian article George Monbiot wrote that when people have money they like to spend it. He might have added that they also dislike the government taking any of it away from them in the form of taxes; especially to fund replacing carbon dioxide belching boilers with heat pumps, insulating other people’s houses or funding the infrastructure which will be needed to shift electricity to all those electric cars.

That’s why I’m not keen on the idea of a ‘climate crisis’. It gives the impression that we have to do just one thing and somehow it’s all over. The same applies to thinking of Covid 19 as something that will be over when we have vaccinated everyone in Britain or Europe or the world. We need to start thinking of a the future being a ‘Covid Era’ because the virus is now endemic in the human population, in other words it’s going to be with us long into the future and we need to adjust our thinking and our behaviour to take that into account.

Given the amount of carbon dioxide we have put into the atmosphere already we are going to have to live with the consequences as well as taking steps to stop adding to it, we need to think in terms of a ‘Climate Era’. Are we going to meet our target of ‘net zero’ by looking for a ‘technological fix’ whilst still pursuing ever greater economic growth or are we going to do it by learning to live from our income and not from our capital? The resources of the Earth, which includes the land, the oceans and the atmosphere are our deposit in the bank. Is it time to stop squandering our inheritance?

Family doctor's threaten industrial action.

 

Family doctors are threatening industrial action against government plans that would, inter alia, compel them to see patients face-to-face and force them to disclose their NHS earnings of at least, £150,000 per annum. They also oppose league tables that would show the number of face-to-face appointments carried out by GP practices. The Government's £250m "support package", has been denounced by the British Medical Association (BMA), as a "Bully's Charter."

According to NHS England, around 90% of GP's work part-time. The average age at which doctors now retire is 59-years and a GP's average salary in England is £100,700, roughly twice what a French GP earns. Professor Martin Marshall, Chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioner's, says: "Good, safe, and personalised care, can be delivered remotely and is not confined to general practice."  He also thinks that criticism of GP's is "demoralising and indefensible."

Just 61% of GP appointments were carried out face-to-face in September, compared with pre-pandemic levels of 80% of consultations. Statistics also show that half of all appointments are now carried out by other practice staff such as a nurse, or physio, rather than a doctor. Difficulties in getting to see a GP, have led to more people using A&E, the NHS Helpline, emergency services, and the increasing use, of the private healthcare sector - access for cash, which has put the NHS under increasing pressure. Many doctors and nurses who work in NHS hospitals, have questioned why it's okay for them to deal personally with patients, but not mollycoddled GP's. In response, the GP's say their NHS contracts don't require them to do face-to-face appointments, unless its absolutely necessary.

Some critics, such as Alison Much, the senior coroner for Greater Manchester, have said that remote GP appointments may be a contributory factor in the deaths of people because important information can be missed during telephone appointment's, that may have been picked up if a patient had been seen in person. 

David Nash, a 26-year old law student from Leeds, had four remote consultations with doctors and nurses at a Leeds GP practice over a 19-day period before he died on 4 November 2020. None of the clinicians spotted that he had developed mastoiditis in his ear, which caused a brain abscess that led to meningitis. He had presented four times in short succession with a range of escalating symptoms. He'd had a fever for nine days and despite a negative Covid-19 test, there was no clear diagnosis. His father told the press that mastoiditis is readily treatable with antibiotics. 

The case of David Nash is not an isolated case; there have been many other such cases. Like all professions, the medical profession, has vested interest to protect that may not be in the long-term interests of their patients. Although GP's have contracts with the NHS, many GP practices are run as private businesses. We should not forget that when the NHS was first proposed, many doctors objected to the principal of a state run health care system that was free at the point of use. Apart from other things, they thought it would effect them financially. When, Aneurin Bevan, was asked how he'd got the doctor's to co-operate, he said: "I stuffed their mouths with gold." The National Health Service in Britain, is almost synonymous with the name of Aneurin Bevan, who was a Welsh Labour MP and socialist.